DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/29/2025 is acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
As the Applicant did not elect Group II directed to a helmet or protective garment in the reply filed on 07/10/2025, claims 46-48 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-7, 12, 14-16 and 40-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “each cushion pad having an outer cushion portion extending between a surface of the protective garment and the support structure”. It is unclear “a surface of the protective garment” is a structure of the liner or not. As the claim is about “a liner for a protective garment”, the limitation is interpreted as each cushion pad having an outer cushion portion configured to extend between a surface of the protective garment and the support structure.
Claim 45 recites “each support structure the different set of the plurality of cushion pads at a different cushion pad height”. It is unclear what structure of the support structure and/or cushion pads the Applicant wants to mention. For the purpose of applying art, the limitation is interpreted that each support structure is provided at respective heights along cushion pads.
Any remaining claims are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
In the art rejections below the claims have been treated as best understood by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 12, 16 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Frieder (US 2022/0225720).
Regarding claim 1, Frieder teaches a liner (fig. 15) for a protective garment, the liner comprising: a support structure (fig. 15, structure 300) having a web of support material (para. [0089], structure 300 comprised of polymeric foams such as EPS, EPP) defining a plurality of openings (fig. 15, openings 302); and a plurality of cushion pads (fig. 15, structure 102) connectable to the support structure, each cushion pad having an outer cushion portion (fig. 15, projections 120) extending between a surface of the protective garment and the support structure (para. [0090], when the whole system is connected to the helmet shell, the projections 120 are configured to extend between a surface of the helmet shell and the structure 300), and an inner cushion portion (fig. 15, the opposite part of the structure 102) extending opposite the outer cushion portion on an opposite side of the support structure (fig. 15), each one of the plurality of cushion pads having a plurality of layers (para. [0069], layers 114) formed of strings (para. [0069], struts 106) disposed in a manner to define a repeating pattern (para. [0069], lattice structure 102 includes a plurality of layers 114, each layer 114 comprising cells 104, which comprises struts 106), with the plurality of layers being stacked on one another to define one or more cells along a thickness of the cushion pad (fig. 15).
Regarding claim 2, Frieder teaches the repeating pattern is defined in each layer of the plurality of layers (fig. 15, para. [0069]).
Regarding claim 3, Frieder teaches the repeating pattern is defined by at least two adjacent layers of the plurality of layers (fig. 15, para. [0069]).
Regarding claim 4, Frieder teaches the repeating pattern includes a lattice pattern (para. [0069]), a honey comb pattern (para. [0066]), a hexagonal pattern (fig. 4E) or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 5, Frieder teaches the plurality of layers comprises a first section and a second section, and wherein the strings of the first section of the first section of the plurality of layers define a first repeating pattern, and the strings of the second portion of the plurality of layers define a second repeating pattern (annotated fig. 11A below).
PNG
media_image1.png
530
836
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Frieder teaches the first repeating pattern and the second repeating pattern are configured to provide respective impact absorption behaviors (para. [0064], lattice structure 102 is configured to provide impact protection to the user).
Regarding claim 7, Frieder teaches the first section and the second section are stacked one on top of another (annotated fig. 11A above).
Regarding claim 12, Frieder teaches the strings of at least some of the plurality of layers are axially offset in at least one direction relative to the strings of one or more adjacent layers, rotationally offset relative to the strings of one or more adjacent layers, or a combination thereof (fig. 2, para. [0069], the lattice structure 102 includes a plurality of layers 114, each layer comprising cells 104, which comprises struts 106; cells 104 have shapes such as frustum, cylinder, cone, pyramid, polygonal, spherical; then strings of at least some of the plurality of layers are axially offset in at least one direction relative to the strings of one or more adjacent layers or rotationally offset relative to the strings of one or more adjacent layers).
Regarding claim 16, Frieder teaches at least some of the plurality of layers are non-planar (fig. 2, para. [0069]).
Regarding claim 44, Frieder teaches the support structure is made of resilient material (para. [0089], structure 300 comprised of polymeric foams such as EPS, EPP).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frieder (US 2022/0225720), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boutin (US 2019/0231018).
Regarding claim 14, Frieder does not clearly teaches at least some of the plurality of layers are substantially planar and parallel to one another.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Boutin teaches at least some of the plurality of layers (para. [0196], layers 302’, 306’) are substantially planar and parallel to one another (figs. 15A-15D, para. [0187], virtual curves 302’and 306’ can extend substantially parallel to one another).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Frieder with at least some of the plurality of layers substantially planar and parallel to one another as taught by Boutin for the benefit of providing a shock absorbing layer includes a 3D structure defined by a plurality of interconnected minimal surfaces (Boutin, para. [0022]).
Regarding claim 15, Frieder does not teach at least some of the plurality of layers are substantially planar and angled relative to one another.
However, Boutin teaches at least some of the plurality of layers are substantially planar (para. [0196]) and angled relative to one another (figs. 15A-15D, para. [0187], the virtual curves 302’ and 306’ are not parallel).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Frieder with at least some of the plurality of layers substantially planar and angled relative to one another as taught by Boutin for the benefit of providing a shock absorbing layer includes a 3D structure defined by a plurality of interconnected minimal surfaces (Boutin, para. [0022]).
Claims 40-43 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frieder (US 2022/0225720), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kelly (US 2014/0201890).
Regarding claim 40, Frieder does not clearly teach each cushion pad comprises a groove intermediate the outer cushion portion and the inner cushion portion for engaging a respective one of the plurality of openings.
However, Frieder teaches hooks may be incorporated into lattice structure 102 to couple to and retain structure 300 (para. [0091]); and the structure 300 is sandwiched between two lattice structures (para. [0092]).
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Kelly teaches a groove (fig. 4J, a groove in the middle portion of the pad) intermediate the outer cushion portion and the inner cushion portion for engaging a respective one of the plurality of openings (fig. 10, openings in the chassis).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the hooks in the cushion pad of Frieder with a groove intermediate the outer cushion portion and the inner cushion portion as taught by Kelly for the benefit of securing the pads to the 3D structure and maintaining the position of the pads relative to each other, the shell and/or the head in a configuration or position to protect a user’s head (Kelly, para. [0065]).
Regarding claim 41, the modified structure Frieder-Kelly teaches each one of the plurality of openings is complementary shaped relative to one or more of the plurality of cushion pads so that each cushion pad engages the respective one of the plurality of openings (Frieder, fig. 15).
Regarding claim 42, the modified structure Frieder-Kelly does not teach the support structure comprises support members for connecting the support structure to the surface of the protective garment in a spaced-apart relation relative to the surface of the protective garment.
However, Kelly teaches the support structure (fig. 17, chassis 1715) comprises support members (fig. 17, projection 1717) for connecting the support structure to the surface of the protective garment in a spaced-apart relation relative to the surface of the protective garment (fig. 10, para. [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Frieder-Kelly with support members as taught by Kelly for the benefit of removably coupling the chassis to a shell of a helmet (Kelly, para. [0083]) and maintaining the position of the pads relative to each other, the shell and/or the head in a configuration or position to protect a user’s head (Kelly, para. [0065]).
Regarding claim 43, the modified structure Frieder-Kelly does not teach each support member comprises a connection pad, the connection pad having mechanical properties allowing a relative movement of the support structure with respect to the surface of the protective garment.
However, Kelly teaches each support member comprises a connection pad (para. [0083], hook-and-loop fastener), the connection pad having mechanical properties allowing a relative movement of the support structure with respect to the surface of the protective garment (para. [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Frieder-Kelly with a connection pad as taught by Kelly for the benefit of removably coupling the chassis to a shell of a helmet (Kelly, para. [0083]) and maintaining the position of the pads relative to each other, the shell and/or the head in a configuration or position to protect a user’s head (Kelly, para. [0065]).
Regarding claim 45, Frieder does not clearly teach two support structures, each support structure being engaged by a different set of the plurality of cushion pads, each support structure the different set of the plurality of cushion pads at a different cushion pad height.
However, Kelly teaches two support structures, each support structure being engaged by a different set of the plurality of cushion pads, each support structure the different set of the plurality of cushion pads at a different cushion pad height (figs. 15-19, para. [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Frieder with two support structures, each support structure being engaged by a different set of the plurality of cushion pads as taught by Kelly for the benefit of providing different arrangement of pads relative to a helmet shell and a wearer’s head which depends on user’s activities (Kelly, para. [0081]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, dated 11/11/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C 102 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the amended limitations. However, this argument is not commensurate with the rejected claims, as the limitations have not been previously presented. Thus, the amended limitations have been addressed as analyzed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN THI THAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM-4:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/UYEN T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3732